Public perception of agricultural and food technology

Transcription

1 Public perception of agricultural and food technology Reimar von Alvensleben, Institute for Agricultural Economics, University of Kiel Olshausenstr. 40, D Kiel, 1. Introduction Abstract for Food chain March 2001 Uppsala, Sweden In the history of technological change public perception of new technologies has often been ambivalent. New technologies have been regarded either as a threat or as a benefit for the society. In our times many consumers are concerned about the production methods in modern agriculture and in the food industry. Against this background it is important to know how consumers perceive the production methods: What are public beliefs associated with the agricultural and food production of today? What are the determinants of these beliefs and how do they affect consumer behaviour and public policy? 2. Beliefs associated with agricultural production methods An appropriate method to measure salient beliefs is the association test, which can be applied in different ways in order to understand consumer beliefs about food production methods for instance by asking the question: "What is on your mind, when you hear the word...?" We applied this test in a small sample (n = 30) using different stimuli such as "Animal husbandry"(table 1), "Poultry keeping", "Plant protective agents" (table 2) and "fertilizers". Table 1: Spontaneous asssociations with the stimulus "Animal husbandry" 1. Positive (3): free-range, happy hens (2) keeping animal free range 2. Neutral (17): Hopefully "animal friendly" (artgerecht) should be kept naturally breeding beasts hens cows (4) cows on a pasture keeping dairy cows rearing cows and pigs pigs (2) geese stable fertilizer there are good and bad aspects to it. 3. Negative (40): exploitation factory farming (9) keeping masses of animals mass production animal factories cows side by side in giant sheds too small stables too confined confined not "animal friendly" (3) rarely "animal friendly" (2) natural animal husbandry rather rare too many medical drugs animals stuffed with drugs too much concentrated feed stuff unhealthy pity for the animals nowadays cruel nowadays often terrible cruel to animals (2) unworthy of animals unhealthy animals hospitalism animals bitten to death fidgeting hens squeaking pigs in a lorry stench utmost precaution. Numbers in brackets refer to how frequently items were mentioned Source: Sies and Mahlau (1997), p. 15 (results) The answers to the stimulus "Animal husbandry" give an impressive picture of salient beliefs associated with the modern livestock production: Out of 60 associations only 3 have been positive, 17 could be regarded as neutral and 40 were clearly negative: Most of these negative associations were related to animal welfare aspects of production. Results for the stimulus "Poultry keeping" were similar. According to research results in other European countries, the

2 widespread negative perception of modern animal husbandry seems to be similar across different European countries. A similar set of beliefs was associated with crop production (table 2). Using the stimulus "Plant protective agents" only 10 associations could be categorized as positive or neutral and 50 as negative. The original answers indicate the widespread latent concerns associated with the application of chemistry in modern crop production. Similar, but slightly less negative results have been obtained for the stimulus "fertilizers". Table 2: Spontaneous associations with the stimulus "Plant protective agents" 1. Positive (5): good, if applied moderatly - much grain - necessary to survive - partly necessary (2) 2. Neutral (5): can be viewed positive and negative - spraying equipment (2) - spraying. 3. Negative (50): poison (8) - chemistry (2) - pesticides (4) - E 605 insecticides poisened food dangerous (4) be careful (2) - risk of overapplication (2) better less application and smaller harvest overfertilization to much should be applied less should become more expensive, then less application unhealthy (3) causing illness of men (3) causing malformations harmful (2) - unnatural monoculture pollution of the environment (6) poor plants sick trees (2) destroying the soil objection - terrible farmers acting too much in good faith resistance? expensive. Numbers in brackets refer to how frequently items were mentioned Source: Sies and Mahlau (1997), p. 6 (results) However, not all agricultural production methods are perceived in such a negative way. According to other consumer surveys conducted in 1989 and 2000 in Germany there is a wide variability of the acceptance of agricultural technologies (table 3). Table 3: Beliefs associated with agricultural technologies 1989 and 2000 (Scale: 1 = much more disadvantages, 3 = midpoint, 5 = much more advantages) Average Score Free range pork production. 4.5 Milking machine Conventional plant breeding Organic agriculture ("Alternativer Landbau") Conventional animal breeding Automatic feeding systems Artificial fertilizer ("Mineraldünger") Automatic milking systems ("Melkroboter"). 3.0 Genetechnology in plant breeding Chemical plant protection Genetechnology in animal breeding. 2.1 Vegetable production without soil 2.6. Source: Institute for Agricultural Economics, University of Kiel: Consumer surveys in Hannover and Kiel 1989 (n = 326) and in Kiel 2000 (n = 270)

3 In the opinion of most of consumers, perceived disadvantages are associated with the application of plant protective agents, genetechnology in plant and animal breeding and vegetable production without soil (1989). In the case of artificial fertilizer ("Mineraldünger"), automatic milking systems ("Melkroboter"), and automatic feeding systems in animal husbandry, perceived advantages and disadvantages are almost equal. Other technologies, such as conventional animal and plant breeding, milking machines, but also organic farming and free range pork production are perceived to be advantageous by the majority of the respondents. Comparing the results of the two surveys, public acceptance of gene technology and organic agriculture seem to have declined between 1989 and 2000, while the scores of all other technologies improved slightly. These results can be generalized as follows (von Alvensleben and Steffens, 1990): Technologies applied to plants are more accepted than technologies applied to animals. Mechanization is more accepted than agricultural chemistry Old, well known technologies (combine harvester, milking machine) are more accepted than new technologies (automatic feeding systems, automatic milking systems). Conventional breeding is more accepted than genetic engineering. "Natural" production methods (organic farming, free range animal husbandry) are more accepted than "high-tech" agriculture and food technology. 3. Determinants What are the determinants of negative attitudes towards modern agricultural production methods? In the literature reliable results on causalities are rare. Some of the hypotheses that have been generated include the following (von Alvensleben, 1998): Consumer negativity is A consequence of market saturation in an affluent society (Maslow), Caused by a decreasing basic trust in the institutions/authorities of the society, including institutions regulating consumer protection, Due to an increasing alienation of consumers from agricultural and food production as a consequence of the division of labour in the economy, The result of distorted perceptions, Amplified by negative media reports about modern agriculture and food technologies. 4. Consequences The ambivalent and often negative public perception of modern agricultural and food technologies has an impact on the food markets and on public policy. We observe a considerable consumer concern about food. However the link between the concern expressed by consumers in surveys and actual consumer behaviour is in most cases rather weak. Nevertheless consumers uneasiness about modern agriculture has been important in the developement of the organic food market, the market for free-range livestock products and is supporting the marketing of regional products. On the other hand the introduction of GM foods and to some extent of functional food faces considerable difficulties. Public policies are influenced, too. Politicians perception and public perception of modern agriculture are rather similar (Scheper, 1999). Politicians are subject to the same perception

4 distortions and prejudices regarding modern agriculture as the general public. This leads to increased doubts about the appropriateness of technological progress and research in agriculture, as well as to inefficient political decisions and laws. References von Alvensleben, R. (1999): Grundprobleme der Risikokommunikation und ihre Bedeutung für die Land- und Ernährungswirtschaft. (Basic problems of risk communication and its relevance for agriculture and food industry). Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaus e.v., Band 35, Münster-Hiltrup, p von Alvensleben, R. (1998): Ecological aspects of food demand: The case of organic food in Germany. AIR-CAT 4 th Plenary Meeting: Health, Ecological and Safety Aspects in Food Choice. Volume 4, Nr. 1, von Alvensleben, R. (1998): Risikowahrnehmung des Verbrauchers: Woraus resultiert die Verunsicherung? (Risk perception of the consumer: What is causing the concern?) Schriftenreihe des Bundes für Lebensmittelrecht und Lebensmittelkunde e.v., Heft 127, von Alvensleben, R. et al. (1997): Problems of meat marketing. Seven essays. Lehrstuhl für Agrarmarketing. Institut für Agrarökonomie, Universität Kiel, Arbeitsbericht Nr. 2, 50 p. von Alvensleben, R., Steffens, M. (1990): Akzeptanz der Ergebnisse technischer Fortschritte durch die Verbraucher empirische Relevanz. (Consumer acceptance of the results of technological progress empirical relevance). In: Technischer Fortschritt in der Landwirtschaft Tendenzen, Auswirkungen, Beeinflussung -. Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaus e.v., Band 26. Münster-Hiltrup, Bredahl, L. (1999): Explaining consumer attitudes and behavioural intentions with regard to genetical modified foods Results of a cross-national study. The Aarhus Business School, Working Paper No 69. Durant, J., Bauer, M.W., Gaskell, G. (eds) (1998): Biotechnology and the public sphere. A European resource book. London, 308 p. European Commission (1997): European opinions on modern biotechnology. Eurobarometer Brussels, 87 p. European Commission (2000): The Europeans and Biotechnology. Eurobarometer Brussels, 84 p. Gaskell, G. et al. (1997): Europe ambivalent on biotechnology. Nature, 387. Hampel, J., Keck, G., Peters, H.P., Pfennig, U. et al. (1997): Einstellungen zur Gentechnik. (Attitudes towards genetical engineering). Arbeitsbericht Nr. 87. Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart. Hampel, J. Renn, O. (1998): Kurzfassung der Ergebnisse des Verbundprojektes "Chancen und Risiken der Gentechnik aus der Sicht der Öffentlichkeit" (Summary report of the joint

5 project on "Chances and risks of genetic engineering as viewed by the public"). Akademie der Technikfolgenabschätzung in Baden-Württemberg. Stuttgart, 52 p. Ophuis, O.P.A.M. (1994): Sensory evaluation of 'free range' and regular pork meat under different conditions of experience and awareness. Food Quality and Preference, 5, Petersen, G., Bruhn, M. (2001): Einstellungen der Bevölkerung zu modernen Technologien in der Land- und Ernährungswirtschaft. (Public perceptions of modern technologies in agriculture and food industry). Lehrstuhl für Agrarmarketing, Universität Kiel, Arbeitsbericht Nr 19, 87 p. Plöger, M., Fricke, R., von Alvensleben, R. (1993): Analyse der Nachfrage nach Bio- Produkten. (Demand analysis for organic food). Reihe "Marketing in der Agrar- und Ernährungswirtschaft", Bd. 9, Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk Kiel, 212 p. Scheper, U. (1999): Das Image der Landwirtschaft bei Meinungsmultiplikatoren. (Perception of agriculture by opinion leaders). Dissertation Kiel, Shaker Verlag Aachen, 345 p. Schifferstein, H.N.J., Oude Ophuis, P.A.M. (1998): Health-related determinants of organic food consumption in the Netherlands. Food Quality and Preference, 9, Sies, S., Mahlau, G. (1997): Das Image der Landwirtschaft Ergebnisse von Assoziationstests. (The image of agriculture results of association tests). Lehrstuhl für Agrarmarketing. Institut für Agrarökonomie, Universität Kiel. Arbeitsbericht Nr. 6, 71 p.